Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 14:49:02 +0200 From: Anton Sayetsky <vsasjason@gmail.com> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Timothy Macintyre <tmacintyre@outlook.com>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.0 16kb Page Size Message-ID: <CAA2O=b-JG6V%2BDMYPq0pQXWhBniDqNzWc1mD9VohpjgndwWD-PQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20160319134549.5bf3019f.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <VI1PR05MB1343B48CB99607A90FB15C09DA8C0@VI1PR05MB1343.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20160319132752.932a5a1e.freebsd@edvax.de> <CAA2O=b_3Yrd3fydDrw-H6AY7UHh-6=T0Pvuig9D2Gs7VUV9tMg@mail.gmail.com> <20160319134549.5bf3019f.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2016-03-19 14:45 GMT+02:00 Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 14:37:14 +0200, Anton Sayetsky wrote: >> 2016-03-19 14:27 GMT+02:00 Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>: >> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:11:17 +0000, Timothy Macintyre wrote: >> >> I'm trying to do some testing on FreeBSD 9.0 with the page size >> >> set to 16kb on amd64 but I'm having trouble building a stable kernel. >> >> >> >> I've changed the PAGE_SHIFT to 14 under param.h and also updated >> >> pmap.h/c with the following values so it doesn't complain about >> >> invalid struct sizes at compile but I'm getting a crash after >> >> install and reboot. Is there something I'm missing here? >> >> >> >> >> >> #define _NPCM 12 >> >> #define _NPCPV 677 >> > >> > You should probably repeat that experiment with a currently >> > supported code base. FreeBSD 9.0 is already EOL. The best >> > idea would be to use the FreeBSD 10.2 release (amd64) and >> > make the required changes. >> > >> > In case you have a valid reason not to use FreeBSD 10, but >> > instead need to keep FreeBSD 9, try the most current release, >> > which is FreeBSD 9.3. Remember: it's a legacy release, not a >> > production release. >> You're wrong. I've just checked official FreeBSD site: >> >LATEST RELEASES >> >Production: 10.2, 10.1, 9.3 > > Hmmm... are we looking at different pages? Doh, it's true. According to main page, you're wrong. According to releases page, you're right. %) But in fact I agree that one should not use 9.x at all. > * quote * > > Currently Supported Releases > > Complete information about the release date, the classification type, > and the estimated End-Of-Life (EOL) for currently supported releases > can be found on the Supported Releases section of the FreeBSD Security > Information page. > > Most Recent Releases > > Production Release > > Release 10.2 (August 2015) Announcement : Release Notes : Installation Instructions : Hardware Notes : Readme : Errata > > Release 10.1 (November 2014) Announcement : Release Notes : Installation Instructions : Hardware Notes : Readme : Errata > > Legacy Release > > Release 9.3 (July 2014) Announcement : Release Notes : Installation Instructions : Hardware Notes : Readme : Errata > > * end quote * > > Source: > > https://www.freebsd.org/releases/ > > Still, the FreeBSD 9 path won't continue in the future, so > FreeBSD 10 is the preferred way to go, because the support for > the legacy release FreeBSD 9.3 will end soon. > > Especially FreeBSD 9.0 is mentioned in the "Prior Releases Which > Have Reached End-Of-Life" list. > > > -- > Polytropon > Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAA2O=b-JG6V%2BDMYPq0pQXWhBniDqNzWc1mD9VohpjgndwWD-PQ>